The Last Jedi (4/5 Stars)

The merit of “The Last Jedi” will be reassessed when the third movie of the new trinity comes out. There are several interesting developments in this movie. The question is whether they are going to lead anywhere. I feel like I have been in this place before. I am reminded of the middle seasons of LOST and “the Girl who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest.” These were incomplete but intriguing stories. However the later installments could not fill in the holes. This might be the sad fate of “the Last Jedi” too.

For those who have seen “The Empire Strikes Back” many times, the structure of “The Last Jedi” should seem very familiar. Like “The Empire Strikes Back” most of the characters are fleeing the bad guys while one person is engaged in Jedi training. This happens in “The Last Jedi”. Poe, Finn, and the last of the rebellion are fleeing General Hux’s large battle fleet while Rey seek Jedi training with Luke Skywalker. There is a difference however that renders uneven the first half of the movie. Unlike “The Empire Strikes Back” the fleeing characters have no respite from the pursuing forces, like say hiding out in an asteroid field. Thus, it seems like the time period in which the movie takes place is much shorter than the previous film. Although technically this may seem like it would make the movie more exciting, it also makes less sense. After all, Rey’s Jedi training seems to be a week or a month long at the most, whereas it seemed like Luke Skywalker had at least a year in “The Empire Strikes Back.” The movie then would seem to be wielding a rather liberal view of how a person with force abilities would be able to attain the abilities of a Jedi master. There is a decent if not completely satisfying explanation to this and it is one of the more interesting features of this installment.

Like “The Empire Strikes Back”, “The Last Jedi” expands the audience’s understanding of the Force (this is bound to create seas of unrest amongst fans who like religious zealots already believe they know all there is to know about the Force). As Luke Skywalker seems to be explaining it, the Force is not something individuals attain. It is a force that exists within the very fabric of the universe. It has two sides, dark and light, but neither are its natural state, which is a balance. If a Jedi or Sith were to use the Force, the Force would create an opposite to render balance to the universe. A person who wants to use the Force for good, may end up making things worse because to use the light side of the Force is to create a Sith who uses the dark side. Perhaps then the wise thing to do is to not use the Force at all, which is why Luke Skywalker closed himself off from it and exiled himself to the furthest part of the galaxy. Because the only ones using the Force in the world at the time of “The Last Jedi” are the Dark Sith Lord Snoke and the Sith Lord Kylo Ren, a very strong opposite has emerged in Rey, which may be the reason why her training is so very brief. Maybe.

It is hard to tell where a more nuanced understanding of the Force will lead a franchise that is so ingrained in the notion of a fight between good and evil. This episode seems to be deliberately muddying the waters of such a black and white vision. The most interesting and confusing character is Kylo Ren (played by Adam Driver) who seems to be oscillating somewhere between the light and dark side of the force, not exactly sure of which path to follow. Where he ends up and whether it makes sense will decide whether this trilogy is a good one.

The least interesting person in the first film, Rey (played by Daisy Ridley) also became more nuanced and interesting in this one. As I mentioned in my review of “The Force Awakens” the Star Wars movies are generally guilty of blockbuster narcissism in which large events are dictated by a few familial connections. However, it is revealed in this movie that Rey does not have a connection with anyone. If Kylo Ren is to be believed, she is a nobody from nowhere. I love that. That is great. It unties Rey from any kind of pre-ordained fate. Kylo Ren seems to feel like he should be a Sith because his grandfather was Darth Vader. However, Rey could probably be whatever she ultimately decides to be. It is impossible for me to tell how her arc in the last film will go.

The “Star Wars” franchise still propels its weird relationship with violence. “The Last Jedi” in particular seems to consider the futility of violence while showing as much of it as possible. The majority of characters introduced in the “The Force Awakens” met violent deaths by the end of “The Last Jedi”. For those looking between the lines, this has the tendency to render the lighthearted moments of these movies in a rude light. Some of the battles feel like World War I suicide missions. At one point Poe Dameron (played by Oscar Isaac) decides that it is best to retreat than keep moving forward. He does this after most of his comrades in arms have been blown to smithereens. A decent leader would probably have made the retreat decision before sending most of the army to its death. Furthermore, because there is no policy discussion that would enable the viewer to tell the difference between the good guys and the bad guys, the war may as well be about the colors of their uniforms. In any case, I felt several times in this movie that the good guys should have probably just given up. That may have been the point of this movie, which will be expanded further in the last one. Or the last of the trilogy may simply feature a battle in which the good guys win (like “The Return of the Jedi”). That would be the obvious thing to do, but it would also render stupid all the interesting points that were made in “The Last Jedi.” Like I said before, much is hinging on how all of this is resolved.

The Shape of Water (4/5 Stars)

“Unable to perceive the shape of You, I find You all around me. Your presence fills my eyes with Your love, It humbles my heart, for You are everywhere.”

Legend has it, writer-director Guillermo Del Toro read that the above poem somewhere, perhaps in an old Islamic text and forgot who said it first and could not find after looking. Then he wrote a movie around it.

“The Shape of Water” is a striking combination of movies, part “Creature from the Black Lagoon” part “Amelie”. It centers upon a single middle-aged woman named Elisa Esposito who happens to be a deaf-mute and works as a janitor in a top secret government in the midst of the cold water. The big bad American government, represented incarnate by a man named Richard Strickland, played by Michael Shannon at his most type-cast, has captured a fish-man from a river in the Amazon. The fish-man’s strange abilities, for breathing underwater and regenerating itself, persuade the government to perform experiments and/or pointlessly torture it. Elisa, played by a fine Sally Hawkins, falls in love with the fish-man.

Writing this after the fact, I can’t think of a logical reason why Elisa would fall in love with the fish-man other than their commonality of being outsiders (deaf people are outsiders, right?). But during the movie, I felt it. This has much to say about the style and direction of Del Toro and the masterful craftsmen he employs. Technically, the movie takes place in Washington D.C., but it feels like Paris at its most romantic. The color palette is brown and wet and green and warm. There is french accordion music playing in the background.

But mostly I believe the love story because I believe Sally Hawkins. I expect it is a tough role to pull off. She has to make us believe she finds the fish-man, played with extensive make-up by Doug Jones, attractive. She does so. She also has to be deaf and sign all of her lines. This she does also with a confidence that makes it seem like she is completely fluent in sign language. It is her greatest performance and her best opportunity for one since “Merry Happy”.

The romance is also helped by the sinister forces that aim to keep the lovers apart, and thus encourage the audience the root for the love as it stands against hate. Norah Ephron once remarked that there were two kinds of love stories, the Christian and the Jewish as she would put it. The conflict in the “Christian” type of story comes from without as in the case of “Romeo and Juliet” (whereas the conflict in the “Jewish” type comes from the imperfections of the lovers themselves). “The Shape of Water” stands directly in the “Christian” form of love story. It is almost taken for granted that the fish-man loves Sally Hawkins and the other way around. What drives the story is the evil Richard Strickland.

It may simply be my affection for the actor Michael Shannon, but I feel for Richard Strickland in this movie. Think about it. Every single character in this movie is an outsider but Richard Strickland. Sally Hawkins is deaf. Her friend and work colleague (played by Octavia Spencer) is black. Her neighbor (played by Richard Jenkins) is gay. The empathetic scientist who works at the lab (played by Michael Stuhlberg) is communist. The fish-man is a fish-man. Michael Shannon, the true-blue patriot who believes in positive thinking and 1950s conformism and commercialism, is all alone. Every other character who isn’t playing a bit role is an outsider.

Are minorities really minorities when they outnumber the supposed majority? Can a movie stand for non-conformity when the supposed conformist is the one character not conforming to the rest? Sure it can. This is America. Anyone can be whatever they want to be.